By Oyintari Ben
Due to a heated disagreement over how much of its tax business should remain with the audit side of the company, EY has “paused” its plan to split into two.
According to persons familiar with the situation, Julie Boland, the head of EY’s US division and the person chosen to lead the company once it spins off its consulting arm, informed partners on a call on Wednesday (Thursday AEDT) that the arrangement needed to be renegotiated.
Almost 40% of EY’s $US45 billion ($68.3 billion) in annual global revenues come from its US operations, giving it significant negotiating muscle during internal discussions about the split.
After the separation, only a small portion of EY’s tax specialists would remain in the audit-dominant company. EY had planned to spin off most of its tax practice into a separate business, including consulting and other advising service lines.
According to two people who knew the situation, Ms Boland also expressed a desire to proceed with the separation, but it was unclear how long the halt might remain.
In a move nicknamed “Project Everest,” EY’s worldwide leadership decided in September to move forward with the consulting division’s spin-off and an initial public offering.
Nevertheless, as the company works to resolve differences over how the split should be implemented, votes by EY’s 13,000 partners have been continually postponed. The most recent plan called for voting in about 75 nations in late April or early May.
The tensions building throughout internal discussions, which have essentially put two sections of the company against one another, are most clearly expressed in Ms Boland’s statements.
Her action will put additional pressure on Carmine Di Sibio, global chair and chief executive of EY, who is anticipated to oversee the solo consulting division if the split proceeds.
A statement from EY said, “We are in discussion with the largest EY country member firms to decide the ultimate shape of the deal as part of our consideration and due diligence in connection with the proposed merger.
“It’s crucial that we get this transaction right because it will serve as a road map for reforming the profession. We continue to support Project Everest’s strategic justification, and a deal can and should be reached.”
